Should healthcare be a right?

[HeyNapkin]

As you know, people on both sides are complaining. Doctors are complaining that people treat them like it's their obligation to treat every patient, regardless of cost to the doctor. Doctors feel that people go to the ER and take advantage of "free care", and some people even think doctors should treat them for free because "doctors shouldn't be in it for the money, they should want to help people". Likewise, many patients are complaining that medicine is becoming more and more of a business. That doctors and hospitals turn away unprofitable patients, and that healthcare should be free/paid for by taxes, like the fire department or police.

So, opinions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Chipster.]

But seriously, there have been hundreds of threads on this topic already.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Yes I do. I also believe we should have a single payer system. However if we are going to do that, the cost of medical education also needs to be dealt with. In the end all I really want in terms of compensation is a salary/benefits package similar to my dad(around 80-90k good benefits, no loans), doing something I love without having to bust my ass in the hot sun. Whether that is through high compensation after going into a ton of debt, or moderate compensation with less debt, I will be happy.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

Here comes 10 pages of nonsense and bickering.

 

[jturkel]

can we close this thread?

 

[Spinach Dip]

Complicated subject. Indeed, it's far more complicated than almost anyone is willing to admit.

Emergency craniotomy to save you from a hemoragic stroke? I think that's a right.

Liposuction because you live a bad lifestyle and have a BMI of 52? No.

The area in the middle is the difficult part.

 

[Mad Jack]

Honestly, life-saving healthcare probably should be a right. The trouble is, a physician should not be compelled to provide a service without just compensation, as that would violate their right to use their skills as they choose and seek payment as they choose, a foundational principle of the American economic system. It's a really hard thing to balance, and I don't think anyone on this board is really smart enough to tackle it successfully.

 

[wjs010]

Lol. Life and pursuit of happiness is a right. A professional service is not a right.

 

[Boolean]

Honestly, life-saving healthcare probably should be a right. The trouble is, a physician should not be compelled to provide a service without just compensation, as that would violate their right to use their skills as they choose and seek payment as they choose, a foundational principle of the American economic system. It's a really hard thing to balance, and I don't think anyone on this board is really smart enough to tackle it successfully.

This. However, I highly doubt we'd ever reach a consensus on what is life-saving and what is not (we may, but the general public probably wouldn't)

 

[Mad Jack]

Lol. Life and pursuit of happiness is a right. A professional service is not a right.

If life is a right, and a person will die without medical intervention, are you not denying that person life by denying them a medical intervention? It's too slippery of a slope, so I don't ever want to go down it. I would never support a politician that demanded health care be made a right, as we don't currently have the resources to make such a guarantee practical.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Which side of this line you fall on is the core of someone's entire philosophy. This thread is going to turn into nothing but people arguing over something that no one is going to change their mind about.

Please think for a second before starting another inflammatory and unproductive thread.

 

[wjs010]

Emergencies that save lives are a right,.. But that's not even what the argument is and where the highest costs of healthcare are. It's in the public, preventive health. Some crazy people think THAT should be a right. Where's my free gym membership? That's the best public health I can think of!

Of course someone being coded deserves to be coded. lol. I'm talking about public health. That doesn't NEED to be a right. People should take it upon themselves to be healthier and have insurance when the need arises. Just trying to save money for this country in a logical way.

 

[wjs010]

Which side of this line you fall on is the core of someone's entire philosophy. This thread is going to turn into nothing but people arguing over something that no one is going to change their mind about.

Please think for a second before starting another inflammatory and unproductive thread.

If no one ever argues about it, not a thing will be done about it.

 

[Chipster.]

If no one ever argues about it, not a thing will be done about it.

And if premeds argue about it over the interwebz, the world will be changed!

 

[Doctor Strange]

If no one ever argues about it, not a thing will be done about it.

But as this forum has shown time and time and time and time again, these threads are far from useful.

 

[wjs010]

But as this forum has shown time and time and time and time again, these threads are far from useful.

True

 

[wjs010]

And if premeds argue about it over the interwebz, the world will be changed!

Lol. Regardless of pre med, if you can't add to an argument , maybe you shouldn't comment on it.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Emergencies that save lives are a right,.. But that's not even what the argument is and where the highest costs of healthcare are. It's in the public, preventive health. Some crazy people think THAT should be a right. Where's my free gym membership? That's the best public health I can think of!

Of course someone being coded deserves to be coded. lol. I'm talking about public health. That doesn't NEED to be a right. People should take it upon themselves to be healthier and have insurance when the need arises. Just trying to save money for this country in a logical way.

Well I think the argument is that preventative care is cheaper in the long run(dont know if this is true or not), so once you take the position that we shouldnt let people die in the street(even Ron Paul holds this opinion) it would make sense to provide preventative care. Of course the question is, what does that really entail and does it actually save money in the long run? And the problem is in our pay for representation style of government/elections nobody cares about those questions. Special interest rule the system and they typically want more taxpayer dollars, not less.

 

[ninjaman22]

Emergencies that save lives are a right,.. But that's not even what the argument is and where the highest costs of healthcare are. It's in the public, preventive health. Some crazy people think THAT should be a right. Where's my free gym membership? That's the best public health I can think of!

Of course someone being coded deserves to be coded. lol. I'm talking about public health. That doesn't NEED to be a right. People should take it upon themselves to be healthier and have insurance when the need arises. Just trying to save money for this country in a logical way.

And what if the cheapest insurance you can find is $1200/month for your family and your monthly income is $2500? And your employer doesn't have any insurance coverage.

 

[wjs010]

And what if the cheapest insurance you can find is $1200/month for your family and your monthly income is $2500? And your employer doesn't have any insurance coverage.

and what if a company who previously had really good insurance for its employees had to drop that awesome coverage because they were forced to buy into something else? There are always tradeoffs on both ends...someone always gets sh*tted on . lol. I know it sucks.

 

[sazerac]

Well I think the argument is that preventative care is cheaper in the long run(dont know if this is true or not).

I've seen a lot of research that says it is not cheaper in the long run. Preventative health care lets people live longer and collect a larger amount of minor health problems before a major medical catastrophe kills them anyway. Preventative medicine might delay the inevitable for a little while, and improve life length and/or life quality, but it doesn't save money. Smoking, for instance, tends to kill people at the end of their productive years and before they retire and collect pension benefits and produce a lot of minor health problems, so smoking actually saves healthcare dollars in the long run.

All that this really demonstrates is that "saving money" is a poor metric for evaluating medical care. After all, the cheapest hospital to operate would be one that injects all patients with potassium ions, stoping their hearts. You's save a lot of healthcare dollars with that kind of policy, even though it would be morally reprehensible.

 

[DermViser]

Yes I do. I also believe we should have a single payer system. However if we are going to do that, the cost of medical education also needs to be dealt with. In the end all I really want in terms of compensation is a salary/benefits package similar to my dad(around 80-90k good benefits, no loans), doing something I love without having to bust my ass in the hot sun. Whether that is through high compensation after going into a ton of debt, or moderate compensation with less debt, I will be happy.

Would you like a puppy as well?

 

[LizzyM]

Lol. Life and pursuit of happiness is a right. A professional service is not a right.

A public defender (a lawyer providing a professional service) is a right provided with taxpayer dollars if you are arrested and cannot afford legal counsel. Just sayin'.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Emergencies that save lives are a right,.. But that's not even what the argument is and where the highest costs of healthcare are. It's in the public, preventive health. Some crazy people think THAT should be a right. Where's my free gym membership? That's the best public health I can think of!

Of course someone being coded deserves to be coded. lol. I'm talking about public health. That doesn't NEED to be a right. People should take it upon themselves to be healthier and have insurance when the need arises. Just trying to save money for this country in a logical way.

Nothing that requires the help, knowledge or labor of another person can be a right. Otherwise, it would subjugate the liberty of another.

So emergencies are not a right. The gov't has deemed that they are a privilege.

 

[DermViser]

If no one ever argues about it, not a thing will be done about it.

Yes, and premeds with no life experience and no real job experience discussing it will surely bring about a solution.

 

[DermViser]

A public defender (a lawyer providing a professional service) is a right provided with taxpayer dollars if you are arrested and cannot afford legal counsel. Just sayin'.

It's also the SIXTH AMENDMENT to the freakin' Constitution. Just sayin'.

 

[Instatewaiter]

A public defender (a lawyer providing a professional service) is a right provided with taxpayer dollars if you are arrested and cannot afford legal counsel. Just sayin'.

It is a right only because your liberty has been taken away and it prevents the unneccessary and unjust loss of liberty by the government. It is a protection from tyranny of the gov't.

 

[wjs010]

Nothing that requires the help, knowledge or labor of another person can be a right. Otherwise, it would subjugate the liberty of another.

So emergencies are not a right. The gov't has deemed that they are a privilege.

Libertarian here and somewhat agree, but I prefer to think that it is someone's right to be saved from PE or some crazy emergency...we as a culture just have to change the way we think. Take care of myself and be healthier/ buy insurance . That's being responsible.

 

[Goro]

Thanks to the US Constitution, specifically the 5th and 6th Amendments, and mainly distilled via the 1960s Gideon v Wainwright decision.

A public defender (a lawyer providing a professional service) is a right provided with taxpayer dollars if you are arrested and cannot afford legal counsel. Just sayin'.

 

[wjs010]

Yes, and premeds with no life experience and no real job experience discussing it will surely bring about a solution.

FWIW, I'm a kinesiology grad, so I'll never be a pre med

 

[chenzt]

Nothing that requires the help, knowledge or labor of another person can be a right. Otherwise, it would subjugate the liberty of another.

So emergencies are not a right. The gov't has deemed that they are a privilege.

Not according to EMTALA

 

[Ace-Co-A]

Thanks to the US Constitution, specifically the 5th and 6th Amendments, and mainly distilled via the 1960s Gideon v Wainwright decision.

Goro, I wanna coin a phrase for when you drop some knowledge: "#Goroed" (pronounced 'gored'). Thoughts?

An extension is when someone gets told as a result of your knowledge bombs, in which case the person "gets Goroed".

 

[Instatewaiter]

Not according to EMTALA

No. I think you miss the distinction between a service/privilege provided by the government and a right. EMTALA does not provide a right.

EMTALA is a requirement of hospitals to deliver emergency care. Now, those hospitals that don't accept CMS are exempt from EMTALA. Not a "right."

 

[Spinach Dip]

So emergencies are not a right. The gov't has deemed that they are a privilege.

"Yes, your honor, he was actively coding. But because he had swastikas tatooed all over his body--and because I was still technically on my coffee break--I figured he didn't really need to be defibrilated right away... I mean, it's not like he had a right to immediate attention or anything... y'know what I mean?"



Go ahead and try that one in court.

 

[XmedBarney]

A public defender (a lawyer providing a professional service) is a right provided with taxpayer dollars if you are arrested and cannot afford legal counsel. Just sayin'.

I know that @Goro has already referenced the Gideon v. Wainwright case. But the fact is that there are enough enumerated and implied rights in the constitution, so that an awkward derivation of health care as a right can be done.

However the strongest counterargument to the case of the public defender is that : He/She enters into contract with the state to perform a service for a wage they consider fair, at-will employment. Lawyers in general are under no ethical obligation to serve as public defenders, if they choose not to.

The situation is therefore not comparable (physicians under Univ.HC and the Attorney-public defender).

 

[LizzyM]

I know that @Goro has already referenced the Gideon v. Wainwright case. But the fact is that there are enough enumerated and implied rights in the constitution, so that an awkward derivation of health care as a right can be done.

However the strongest counterargument to the case of the public defender is that : He/She enters into contract with the state to perform a service for a wage they consider fair, at-will employment. Lawyers in general are under no ethical obligation to serve as public defenders, if they choose not to.

The situation is therefore not comparable (physicians under Univ.HC and the Attorney-public defender).

I never said it was equivalent. I was just pointing out that the services of one profession is considered a right under the US Constitution in some circumstances as a counterargument to the statement that the services of a professional are not a right.

 

[touchpause13]

Is there any sort of general point to this thread?

I just don't quite get it... i doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's opinion on the matter.

 

[moisne]

This is why Marx said communism is the highest order if governing... Or whatever. I failed history

 

[Narmerguy]

Whether or not we can agree if healthcare is a "right", it need not be a right for it to be generally beneficial for a modern, democratic society. Similar to education.

...and this is my preemptive "keep it civil" warning.

 

[mehc012]

Somehow it is a right to have helicopters and multiple trained professionals mobilized to save your @$$ when you decide not to leave your home when warned ahead of time that it is in the direct path of a dangerous hurricane. It is a right to have expensive search parties find and rescue you after deciding to try and sail around the world unaided. These services are rendered without expectation of reimbursement because it is considered the government's job to save those people's lives. And yet it is not considered a right to have lifesaving medical treatment.

I don't care which side of it we come down on, but the inconsistency kills me.

 

[Instatewaiter]

"Yes, your honor, he was actively coding. But because he had swastikas tatooed all over his body--and because I was still technically on my coffee break--I figured he didn't really need to be defibrilated right away... I mean, it's not like he had a right to immediate attention or anything... y'know what I mean?"



Go ahead and try that one in court.

Again, just because something is not allowed by law, doesn't mean the converse is a right.

 

[Tommyguns89]

I've seen a lot of research that says it is not cheaper in the long run. Preventative health care lets people live longer and collect a larger amount of minor health problems before a major medical catastrophe kills them anyway. Preventative medicine might delay the inevitable for a little while, and improve life length and/or life quality, but it doesn't save money. Smoking, for instance, tends to kill people at the end of their productive years and before they retire and collect pension benefits and produce a lot of minor health problems, so smoking actually saves healthcare dollars in the long run.

All that this really demonstrates is that "saving money" is a poor metric for evaluating medical care. After all, the cheapest hospital to operate would be one that injects all patients with potassium ions, stoping their hearts. You's save a lot of healthcare dollars with that kind of policy, even though it would be morally reprehensible.

well I said at the start of the post that we were operating under the assumption that we didnt want to let people who couldnt afford care die.

Yes, and premeds with no life experience and no real job experience discussing it will surely bring about a solution.

Some of us are older and have job experience.(the type that doesnt involve a temperature controlled office)

 

[LizzyM]

In some states, education is a right up through secondary school and public schools are funded with tax dollars. Individuals are free to choose private schools at their own expense. Teachers in public schools are government employees who are paid with public funds; the facilities and equipment are publicly funded. Private schools are privately owned and operated and the employees of those schools are employed by the schools themselves and paid with money from tuition and philanthropy.

Could we envision health care as a right with public funding and providers as public employees? Health care is a right for some veterans and the federal government provides the care; eligible veterans are free to go elsewhere for care if they can afford it (through insurance). Could we see extending this to all members of society?

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Yes, healthcare should be a right, and not one to be taken away similarly to how voting privileges can be. When you go to court you also have a right to a lawyer but that doesn't mean you can pick any lawyer you want if you cant afford him, there are state appointed ones. If a person continually commits a crime he still has the same rights to a lawyer in each court case. If we are the humanitarians we profess to be, this is a basic premise and an inalienable human right.

 

[ChemEngMD]

I think undergraduates are most annoying when they go through their Libertarian phase...it's like they think they have cracked some secret code and all of a sudden know all of the answers to society's problems.

They do make for entertaining interwebz debates doe.

 

[Boolean]

Yes, healthcare should be a right, and not one to be taken away similarly to how voting privileges can be. When you go to court you also have a right to a lawyer but that doesn't mean you can pick any lawyer you want if you cant afford him, there are state appointed ones. If a person continually commits a crime he still has the same rights to a lawyer in each court case. If we are the humanitarians we profess to be, this is a basic premise and an inalienable human right.

The issue with this is attempting to find what is considered good health to the general public. In the case of the law, it's fairly straightforward: if you are a defendant, you have the right to a lawyer.

Where do we draw the line for medicine? Life-threatening cases? Chronic illness? Tummy-aches?

 

[circulus vitios]

If healthcare is a right, a $500k/year physician salary plus 6 weeks paid vacation, full benefits, and 2-3% annual COL raises better be a right, too.

 

[Lucca]

If healthcare is a right, a $500k/year physician salary plus 6 weeks paid vacation, full benefits, and 2-3% annual COL raises better be a right, too.

The thread about physician salaries is across the hall and to the left.

 

[circulus vitios]

The thread about physician salaries is across the hall and to the left.

They aren't independent topics. Healthcare as a right would drive down physician salaries. I'm not in the business of working my ass off for over a decade so I can make peanuts.

 

[Lucca]

They aren't independent topics. Healthcare as a right would drive down physician salaries. I'm not in the business of working my ass off for over a decade so I can make peanuts.

There is zero correlation between something being a right and your desire to provide that right. Is there a linear relationship between something being ethically necessary and the salaries of the people that carry that out? Is publically funded schools only a right if teachers are paid adequately?